About Us

Employment Discrimination Law in The United States

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the typical law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and regional laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based upon certain characteristics or “secured categories”. The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public workers. Discrimination in the economic sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has actually ended up being subject to a growing body of federal and state law, consisting of the Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964. Federal law restricts discrimination in a variety of areas, consisting of recruiting, employing, task examinations, promo policies, training, settlement and disciplinary action. State laws often extend defense to additional classifications or employers.

Under federal employment discrimination law, companies usually can not victimize employees on the basis of race, [1] sex [1] [2] (consisting of sexual orientation and gender identity), [3] pregnancy, [4] religion, [1] national origin, [1] impairment (physical or mental, including status), [5] [6] age (for workers over 40), [7] military service or affiliation, [8] personal bankruptcy or bad debts, [9] genetic information, [10] and citizenship status (for people, irreversible citizens, short-term residents, refugees, and asylees). [11]

List of United States federal discrimination law

Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Liberty Act of 1964 Title VI of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964

Title IX

Constitutional basis

The United States Constitution does not straight deal with work discrimination, but its prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government have actually been held to secure federal government staff members.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state federal governments to discriminate. The Fifth Amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government does not deny individuals of “life, liberty, or property”, without due procedure of the law. It also consists of an implicit warranty that the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly restricts states from violating a person’s rights of due process and equivalent protection. In the employment context, these Constitutional provisions would restrict the right of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their work practices by dealing with workers, previous employees, or task candidates unequally because of subscription in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process security needs that government staff members have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a “liberty” (such as the right to totally free speech) or residential or commercial property interest. As both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are passive, the clause that empowers Congress to pass anti-discrimination costs (so they are not unconstitutional under Tenth Amendment) is Section 5 of Fourteenth Amendment.

Employment discrimination or harassment in the economic sector is not unconstitutional because Federal and most State Constitutions do not expressly give their respective government the power to enact civil liberties laws that apply to the economic sector. The Federal government’s authority to regulate a personal service, including civil liberties laws, originates from their power to manage all commerce between the States. Some State Constitutions do expressly pay for some defense from public and private work discrimination, such as Article I of the California Constitution. However, most State Constitutions just attend to discriminatory treatment by the federal government, consisting of a public company.

Absent of a provision in a State Constitution, State civil rights laws that regulate the personal sector are generally Constitutional under the “police powers” doctrine or the power of a State to enact laws developed to protect public health, safety and morals. All States must abide by the Federal Civil Rights laws, but States may enact civil rights laws that offer additional work protection.

For instance, some State civil liberties laws offer defense from work discrimination on the basis of political affiliation, although such kinds of discrimination are not yet covered in federal civil rights laws.

History of federal laws

Federal law governing work discrimination has established gradually.

The Equal Pay Act changed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. It is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. [12] The Equal Pay Act forbids employers and unions from paying various wages based upon sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory practices in hiring. It supplies that where employees perform equivalent work in the corner needing “equivalent skill, effort, and duty and performed under comparable working conditions,” they need to be provided equivalent pay. [2] The Fair Labor Standards Act uses to employers participated in some aspect of interstate commerce, or all of an employer’s workers if the enterprise is engaged as a whole in a significant quantity of interstate commerce. [citation required]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination in much more elements of the work relationship. “Title VII produced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to administer the act”. [12] It uses to a lot of companies taken part in interstate commerce with more than 15 staff members, labor companies, and employment service. Title VII forbids discrimination based upon race, color, faith, sex or nationwide origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon secured qualities regarding terms, conditions, and advantages of work. Employment firms may not discriminate when hiring or referring candidates, and labor organizations are likewise restricted from basing subscription or union categories on race, color, faith, sex, or national origin. [1] The Pregnancy Discrimination Act changed Title VII in 1978, defining that unlawful sex discrimination includes discrimination based upon pregnancy, giving birth, and associated medical conditions. [4] An associated statute, the Family and Medical Leave Act, sets requirements governing leave for pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. [13]

Executive Order 11246 in 1965 “restricts discrimination by federal contractors and subcontractors on account of race, color, religious beliefs, sex, or nationwide origin [and] needs affirmative action by federal contractors”. [14]

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), enacted in 1968 and amended in 1978 and 1986, prohibits companies from discriminating on the basis of age. The restricted practices are almost identical to those laid out in Title VII, other than that the ADEA safeguards workers in companies with 20 or more workers rather than 15 or more. A worker is safeguarded from discrimination based upon age if he or she is over 40. Since 1978, the ADEA has phased out and prohibited necessary retirement, other than for high-powered decision-making positions (that likewise offer large pensions). The ADEA includes explicit guidelines for advantage, pension and retirement plans. [7] Though ADEA is the center of a lot of conversation of age discrimination legislation, there is a longer history beginning with the abolishment of “optimal ages of entry into employment in 1956” by the United States Civil Service Commission. Then in 1964, Executive Order 11141 “developed a policy against age discrimination amongst federal contractors”. [15]

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids work discrimination on the basis of special needs by the federal government, federal contractors with agreements of more than $10,000, and programs getting federal financial assistance. [16] It requires affirmative action as well as non-discrimination. [16] Section 504 requires affordable accommodation, and Section 508 requires that electronic and infotech be accessible to handicapped staff members. [16]

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 restricts discrimination by mine operators versus miners who struggle with “black lung disease” (pneumoconiosis). [17]

The Vietnam Era Readjustment Act of 1974 “requires affirmative action for disabled and Vietnam period veterans by federal professionals”. [14]

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of bankruptcy or uncollectable bills. [9]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits companies with more than three employees from discriminating versus anybody (other than an unauthorized immigrant) on the basis of nationwide origin or citizenship status. [18]

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was enacted to remove prejudiced barriers versus qualified people with disabilities, individuals with a record of a disability, or individuals who are considered as having an impairment. It restricts discrimination based upon genuine or viewed physical or psychological impairments. It likewise needs companies to supply reasonable lodgings to staff members who require them since of an impairment to obtain a task, carry out the essential functions of a job, or take pleasure in the advantages and opportunities of work, unless the employer can reveal that excessive challenge will result. There are stringent restrictions on when a company can ask disability-related questions or require medical exams, and all medical details must be treated as personal. An impairment is defined under the ADA as a mental or physical health condition that “significantly limits one or more major life activities. ” [5]

The Nineteenth Century Civil Liberty Acts, amended in 1993, guarantee all persons equivalent rights under the law and detail the damages available to complainants in actions brought under Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. [19] [20]

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 bars employers from using people’ genetic info when making hiring, firing, task placement, or promo choices. [10]

The proposed US Equality Act of 2015 would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. [21] Since June 2018 [update], 28 US states do not clearly include sexual orientation and 29 US states do not explicitly include gender identity within anti-discrimination statutes.

LGBT work discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender identity. This is encompassed by the law’s restriction of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020 ), work securities for LGBT individuals were patchwork; a number of states and regions explicitly restrict harassment and predisposition in employment decisions on the basis of sexual preference and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. [22] Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT staff members; the EEOC’s identified that transgender workers were protected under Title VII in 2012, [23] and extended the protection to include sexual orientation in 2015. [24] [25]

According to Crosby Burns and Jeff Krehely: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 15 percent to 43 percent of gay individuals have actually experienced some type of discrimination and harassment at the office. Moreover, a staggering 90 percent of transgender employees report some kind of harassment or mistreatment on the job.” Many people in the LGBT neighborhood have lost their job, consisting of Vandy Beth Glenn, a transgender woman who claims that her manager told her that her existence may make other people feel uncomfortable. [26]

Almost half of the United States likewise have state-level or municipal-level laws prohibiting the discrimination of gender non-conforming and transgender individuals in both public and private work environments. A couple of more states prohibit LGBT discrimination in only public work environments. [27] Some opponents of these laws believe that it would intrude on religious liberty, although these laws are focused more on prejudiced actions, not beliefs. Courts have likewise determined that these laws do not infringe complimentary speech or religious liberty. [28]

State law

State statutes also supply substantial protection from employment discrimination. Some laws extend similar security as supplied by the federal acts to companies who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes supply defense to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws supply higher security to staff members of the state or of state specialists.

The following table lists classifications not safeguarded by federal law. Age is consisted of as well, since federal law just covers employees over 40.

In addition,

– District of Columbia – enlisting, individual look [35]- Michigan – height, weight [53]- Texas – Participation in emergency situation evacuation order [90]- Vermont – Birthplace [76]

Civil servant

Title VII also applies to state, federal, regional and other public employees. Employees of federal and state governments have extra securities versus employment discrimination.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 forbids discrimination in federal work on the basis of conduct that does not affect job efficiency. The Office of Personnel Management has actually analyzed this as forbiding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [91] In June 2009, it was revealed that the analysis would be broadened to include gender identity. [92]

Additionally, public workers retain their First Amendment rights, whereas personal employers have the right to limits workers’ speech in certain methods. [93] Public employees retain their First Amendment rights insofar as they are speaking as a civilian (not on behalf of their company), they are speaking on a matter of public issue, and their speech is not interfering with their task. [93]

Federal employees who have work discrimination claims, such as postal workers of the United States Postal Service (USPS) need to take legal action against in the appropriate federal jurisdiction, which poses a different set of concerns for complainants.

Exceptions

Authentic occupational qualifications

Employers are typically permitted to consider qualities that would otherwise be prejudiced if they are authentic occupational certifications (BFOQ). The most typical BFOQ is sex, and the second most common BFOQ is age. Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications can not be used for on the basis of race.

The only exception to this guideline is demonstrated in a single case, Wittmer v. Peters, referall.us where the court guidelines that police monitoring can match races when essential. For example, if police are running operations that involve confidential informants, or undercover agents, sending out an African American officer into a sting for a KKK white supremacy group. Additionally, authorities departments, such as the department in Ferguson, Missouri, can consider race-based policing and hire officers that are proportional to the neighborhood’s racial makeup. [94]

BFOQs do not apply in the entertainment industry, such as casting for films and tv. [95] Directors, manufacturers and casting personnel are allowed to cast characters based on physical characteristics, such as race, sex, hair color, eye color, weight, and so on. Employment discrimination claims for Disparate Treatment are unusual in the show business, particularly in performers. [95] This reason is special to the show business, and does not move to other markets, such as retail or food. [95]

Often, employers will utilize BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory work discrimination. BFOQ can not be an expense validation in wage gaps in between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer should stabilize privacy and security interest in the variety of positions that a company are trying to fill. [96]

Additionally, client preference alone can not be a validation unless there is a personal privacy or safety defense. [96] For example, retail establishments in rural locations can not forbid African American clerks based on the racial ideologies of the consumer base. But, matching genders for staffing at centers that handle children survivors of sexual abuse is allowed.

If a company were trying to show that work discrimination was based upon a BFOQ, there must be a factual basis for thinking that all or significantly all members of a class would be unable to perform the task securely and effectively or that it is unwise to identify credentials on a personalized basis. [97] Additionally, lack of a sinister intention does not transform a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a prejudiced effect. [97] Employers likewise bring the concern to show that a BFOQ is reasonably needed, and a lesser discriminatory option approach does not exist. [98]

Religious work discrimination

“Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their work since of their faith, their faiths and practices, and/or their ask for accommodation (a modification in a workplace rule or policy) of their religions and practices. It likewise includes dealing with people in a different way in their employment since of their absence of religion or practice” (Workplace Fairness). [99] According to The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, companies are prohibited from refusing to hire a private based on their religion- alike race, sex, age, and impairment. If a worker believes that they have experienced spiritual discrimination, they should address this to the alleged offender. On the other hand, staff members are safeguarded by the law for reporting task discrimination and have the ability to file charges with the EEOC. [100] Some places in the U.S. now have stipulations that ban discrimination against atheists. The courts and laws of the United States give specific exemptions in these laws to companies or organizations that are religious or religiously-affiliated, nevertheless, to differing degrees in different areas, depending on the setting and the context; a few of these have actually been maintained and others reversed in time.

The most current and prevalent example of Religious Discrimination is the extensive rejection of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Many employees are using religions versus modifying the body and preventative medicine as a justification to not get the vaccination. Companies that do not permit workers to get religious exemptions, or reject their application might be charged by the employee with employment discrimination on the basis of religions. However, there are certain requirements for staff members to present proof that it is an all the best held belief. [101]

Members of the Communist Party

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly allows discrimination versus members of the Communist Party.

Military

The armed force has faced criticism for forbiding women from serving in battle roles. In 2016, however, the law was changed to permit them to serve. [102] [103] [104] In the post published on the PBS site, Henry Louis Gates Jr. composes about the method which black guys were dealt with in the military during the 1940s. According to Gates, somalibidders.com during that time the whites gave the African Americans a possibility to prove themselves as Americans by having them take part in the war. The National Geographic site states, nevertheless, that when black soldiers signed up with the Navy, they were only permitted to work as servants; their participation was restricted to the roles of mess attendants, stewards, and cooks. Even when African Americans wished to protect the country they lived in, they were rejected the power to do so.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) safeguards the job rights of people who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to carry out military service or specific types of service in the National Disaster Medical System. [105] The law also prohibits companies from discriminating against employees for previous or present involvement or membership in the uniformed services. [105] Policies that offer preference to veterans versus non-veterans has been alleged to impose systemic diverse treatment of females because there is a huge underrepresentation of women in the uniformed services. [106] The court has declined this claim since there was no discriminatory intent towards females in this veteran friendly policy. [106]

Unintentional discrimination

Employment practices that do not straight victimize a safeguarded classification may still be illegal if they produce a diverse effect on members of a secured group. Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964 restricts work practices that have an inequitable impact, unless they belong to task efficiency.

The Act requires the removal of artificial, approximate, and unneeded barriers to employment that run invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, a work practice that operates to exclude Negroes can not be revealed to be associated with task performance, it is forbidden, regardless of the company’s absence of prejudiced intent. [107]

Height and weight requirements have been recognized by the EEOC as having a disparate influence on national origin minorities. [108]

When resisting a disparate impact claim that declares age discrimination, a company, however, does not need to show requirement; rather, it needs to just reveal that its practice is reasonable. [citation required]

Enforcing entities

The Equal Job Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets and enforces the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. [109] The Commission was established by the Civil liberty Act of 1964. [110] Its enforcement provisions are contained in area 2000e-5 of Title 42, [111] and its guidelines and standards are included in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614. [112] Persons wishing to submit fit under Title VII and/or the ADA should tire their administrative treatments by filing an administrative complaint with the EEOC prior to filing their lawsuit in court. [113]

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs imposes Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with specials needs by federal specialists and subcontractors. [114]

Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each company has and imposes its own guidelines that apply to its own programs and to any entities that get financial support. [16]

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) implements the anti-discrimination arrangements of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b, which restricts discrimination based on citizenship status or national origin. [115]

State Fair Employment Practices (FEP) workplaces take the role of the EEOC in administering state statutes. [113]

See likewise

Employment Non-Discrimination Act
LGBT work discrimination in the United States
Employment discrimination versus persons with rap sheets in the United States
Racial wage space in the United States
Gender pay space in the United States
Criticism of credit history systems in the United States

References

^ a b c d e “Title VII of the Civil Liberty Act of 1964”. US EEOC. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “The Equal Pay Act of 1963”. Archived from the original on April 5, 2020. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020 ).
^ a b “Pregnancy Discrimination Act”. Archived from the initial on May 12, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, As Amended”. ADA.gov. Archived from the original on December 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS”. Archived from the initial on July 22, 2009. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ a b “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. Archived from the initial on December 13, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the original on December 11, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b 11 U.S.C. § 525
^ a b “Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008” (PDF). gpo.gov. May 21, 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2018. Retrieved January 6, 2015.
^ 8 U.S.C. § 1324b
^ a b Blankenship, Kim M (1993 ). “Bringing Gender and Race in: U.S. Employment Discrimination Policy”. Gender and Society. 7 (2 ): 204-226. doi:10.1177/ 089124393007002004. JSTOR 189578. S2CID 144175260.
^ “Family and Medical Leave Act”. Archived from the original on June 18, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ a b Rozmarin, George C (1980 ). “Employment Discrimination Laws and Their Application”. Law Notes for the Family Doctor. 16 (1 ): 25-29. JSTOR 44066330.
^ Neumark, D (2003 ). “Age discrimination legislations in the United States” (PDF). Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (3 ): 297-317. doi:10.1093/ cep/byg012. S2CID 38171380. Archived (PDF) from the initial on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Guide to Disability Rights Laws”. ADA.gov. December 20, 2023. Archived from the initial on November 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “30 USC Sec. 938”. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2009.
^ “Summary of Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2013. Retrieved August 14, 2021.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981 – Equal rights under the law”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on December 16, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 1981a – Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in work”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the initial on November 27, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)”. Archived from the initial on June 17, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
^ Tilcsik, András (January 1, 2011). “Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States”. American Journal of Sociology. 117 (2 ): 586-626. doi:10.1086/ 661653. hdl:1807/ 34998. JSTOR 10.1086/ 661653. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “In Landmark Ruling, Feds Add Transgendered to Anti-Discrimination Law:: EDGE Boston, MA”. Edgeboston.com. April 25, 2012. Archived from the initial on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Carpenter, Dale (December 14, 2012). “Anti-gay discrimination is sex discrimination, says the EEOC”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 15, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Tatectate, Curtis. “EEOC: Federal law bans office bias versus gays, lesbians, bisexuals|Miami Herald Miami Herald”. Miamiherald.com. Archived from the initial on April 28, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2015.
^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (June 2, 2011). “Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment”. Center for American Progress. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace”. FindLaw. Archived from the initial on May 7, 2021. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ Lowndes, Coleman; Maza, Carlos (September 23, 2014). “The Top Five Myths About LGBT Non-Discrimination Laws Debunked”. Media Matters for America. Archived from the original on June 17, 2019. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
^ “Code of Alabama 25-1-21”. Archived from the initial on July 23, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b c “Alaska Statutes: AS 18.80.220. Unlawful Employment Practices; Exception”. touchngo.com. Archived from the initial on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e f “Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)”. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. CA.gov. 2010. Archived from the original on September 9, 2016. Retrieved September 9, 2016.
^ a b “Colorado Civil Rights Division 2008 Statutes” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Chapter 814c Sec. 46a-60”. Archived from the original on October 17, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Delaware Code Online”. delcode.delaware.gov. Archived from the original on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d e “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Prohibited Acts of Discrimination” (PDF). Archived from the initial (PDF) on July 23, 2009. Retrieved August 8, 2019. ^ “District of Columbia Human Rights Act of 1977; Tabulation, General Provisions” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 30, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Statutes & Constitution: View Statutes:-> 2008-> Ch0760-> Section 10: Online Sunshine”. www.leg.state.fl.us. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Georgia Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on January 29, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Hawaii Rev Statutes 378-2”. Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Idaho Commission on Human Rights: Age Discrimination””. Archived from the original on February 21, 2018. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Illinois Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Indiana General Assembly”. iga.in.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Iowa Code 216.6”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Kansas Age Discrimination in Employment Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2008. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Kentucky Revised Statutes 344.040” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2009.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:352”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:312”. Archived from the original on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:311”. Archived from the initial on May 9, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Title 5, Chapter 337: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT”. www.mainelegislature.org. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Annotated Code of Maryland 49B.16”. Archived from the initial on September 29, 2011. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L. 151B § 4”. Archived from the initial on July 7, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “M.G.L 151B § 1”. Archived from the initial on June 4, 2010. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Minnesota Statutes, section 363A.08”. Archived from the initial on September 6, 2015. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 213.055 R.S.Mo”. Archived from the initial on May 23, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Montana Code Annotated 49-2-303”. Archived from the original on September 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act”. Archived from the initial on November 26, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “NRS: CHAPTER 613 – EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES”. www.leg.state.nv.us. Archived from the original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Section 354-A:7 Unlawful Discriminatory Practices”. Archived from the initial on January 2, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5 -12)”.
^ a b c “2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 28-1-7 – Unlawful inequitable practice”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on September 28, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “New york city State Executive Law, Article 15, Section 296”. Archived from the initial on October 4, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ a b “New York Labor Law Section 201-D – Discrimination against the engagement in particular activities. – New York City Attorney Resources – New York Laws”. law.onecle.com. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ ” § 95-28″. www.ncleg.net. Archived from the initial on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “North Dakota Human Rights Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 18, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “2006 Ohio Revised Code -:: 4112. Civil Rights Commission”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Oklahoma Attorney General Of The United States|”. www.oag.ok.gov. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c “Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 659A”. Archived from the initial on August 16, 2023. Retrieved October 17, 2019.
^ “Laws Administered by the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission” (PDF). [long-term dead link] ^ “State of Rhode Island General Assembly”. www.rilegislature.gov. Archived from the original on October 14, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “South Carolina Human Affairs Law”. Archived from the initial on May 6, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Tennessee State Government – TN.gov”. www.tn.gov. Archived from the original on December 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 21. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the original on September 25, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Utah Code 34A-5-106”. Archived from the original on July 21, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 1, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2009.
^ “Virginia Human Rights Act”. Archived from the initial on December 26, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b “RCW 49.60.180: Unfair practices of companies”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on November 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.172: Unfair practices with respect to HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.60.174: Evaluation of claim of discrimination-Actual or perceived HIV or liver disease C infection”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the initial on April 20, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “RCW 49.44.090: Unfair practices in employment since of age of staff member or applicant-Exceptions”. apps.leg.wa.gov. Archived from the original on April 19, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “State of West Virginia” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ a b c d “Wisconsin Statutes Tabulation”. docs.legis.wisconsin.gov. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ Wyoming Code 27-9-105 [irreversible dead link] ^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 3” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ “22 Guam Code Ann. Chapter 5” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 19, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2009.
^ a b “Puerto Rico Laws 29-I-7-146”. Archived from the initial on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Puerto Rico Laws PR 29-I-7-151”. Archived from the original on February 20, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Virgin Islands Code on Employment Discrimination § 451”. Archived from the initial on February 16, 2012. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “LABOR CODE CHAPTER 22. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION FOR PARTICIPATING IN EMERGENCY EVACUATION”. statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Archived from the initial on June 29, 2023. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “Addressing Sexual Orientation Discrimination In Federal Civilian Employment: A Guide to Employee’s Rights”. Archived from the initial on January 14, 2007.
^ Rutenberg, Jim (June 24, 2009). “New Protections for Transgender Federal Workers (Published 2009)”. The New York City Times. Archived from the original on April 20, 2023.
^ a b “Federal Employee Speech & the First Amendment|ACLU of DC”. www.acludc.org. November 9, 2017. Archived from the original on September 21, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Justice Department Announces Findings of Two Civil Rights Investigations in Ferguson, Missouri”. www.justice.gov. March 4, 2015. Archived from the original on August 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “When is it legal for a company to discriminate in their employing practices based on an Authentic Occupation Qualification?”. University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. April 27, 2016. Archived from the initial on April 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b c “CM-625 Authentic Occupational Qualifications”. US EEOC. January 2, 1982. Archived from the initial on December 12, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “Religious Discrimination – Workplace Fairness”. www.workplacefairness.org. Archived from the initial on November 12, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Questions and Answers about Religious Discrimination in the Workplace”. www.eeoc.gov. January 31, 2011. Archived from the initial on March 5, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination?”. www.americanbar.org. Archived from the original on December 19, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ Thom Patterson (November 10, 2016). “Prepare yourself for more US ladies in combat”. CNN. Archived from the initial on April 19, 2023. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ http://www.militaryaerospace.com/blogs/mil-aero-blog/2012/12/conspicuous-gallantry-doris-miller-at-pearl-harbor-was-one-of-world-war-ii-s-first-heroes.html Archived May 30, 2023, at the Wayback Machine [1] ^ Gates, Henry Louis; Root, Jr|Originally posted on The (January 14, 2013). “Segregation in the Army During World War II|African American History Blog”. The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ a b “USERRA – Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act”. DOL. Archived from the initial on December 11, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ a b “Personnel Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979 )”. Justia Law. Archived from the initial on December 18, 2023. Retrieved April 14, 2023.
^ “FindLaw’s United States Supreme Court case and viewpoints”. Findlaw. Archived from the original on August 25, 2019. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
^ “Shaping Employment Discrimination Law”. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws”. Archived from the initial on August 6, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “Pre 1965: Events Resulting In the Creation of EEOC”. Archived from the initial on August 26, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “42 U.S. Code § 2000e-5 – Enforcement provisions”. LII/ Legal Information Institute. Archived from the original on November 1, 2019. Retrieved December 26, 2023.
^ “PART 1614– FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL JOB OPPORTUNITY”. Archived from the original on July 27, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ a b “Filing a Charge of Employment Discrimination”. Archived from the original on August 12, 2009. Retrieved July 28, 2009.
^ “The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 503”. Archived from the initial on August 2, 2009. Retrieved August 1, 2009.
^ “An Introduction of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices”. Archived from the original on May 31, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2009.
External links

Directory of state labor departments, from the U.S. Department of Labor
Disability Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Sex-Based Discrimination, by the U.S. Equal Job Opportunity Commission
Your Rights At Work (Connecticut).
– Barnes, Patricia G., (2014 ), Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace. The author, an attorney and judge, argues that the U.S. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 stops working to protect older workers. Weak to begin with, she states that the ADEA has been eviscerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Tweedy, Ann E. and Karen Yescavage, Employment Discrimination Against Bisexuals: An Empirical Study, 21 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.